|
|
Enron Mail |
In what I'm sure is an oversight, EEI forgtot to send me a ballot. After
appealing for my right to vote, a ballot was forthcoming. I voted "NO" on the proposal. We will see what happens from here. ---------------------- Forwarded by Elizabeth Sager/HOU/ECT on 02/28/2000 12:42 PM --------------------------- "Andy Katz" <AKatz@eei.org< on 02/28/2000 11:52:31 AM To: Elizabeth Sager/HOU/ECT@ECT cc: Subject: Fwd: Ballot on Article 2.3 Here you go. Andrew S. Katz, Senior Attorney Edison Electric Institute 701 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20004 Voice: 202-508-5616 Fax: 202-508-5673 e-mail: akatz@eei.org Received: from listserver.eei.org by mail.eei.org; Fri, 25 Feb 2000 14:45:14 -0500 Return-Path: <AKatz@eei.org< Received: from mail.eei.org ([204.254.108.2]) by listserver.eei.org with SMTP (Lyris Server version 3.0); Fri, 25 Feb 2000 14:37:08 -0500 Received: from WPDomain-Message_Server by mail.eei.org with Novell_GroupWise; Fri, 25 Feb 2000 14:44:59 -0500 Message-Id: <LYR9187-46755-2000.02.25-14.37.12--aKatz#eei.org@ls.eei.org< Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 14:44:28 -0500 From: "Andy Katz" <AKatz@eei.org< To: "Wholesale Electric Contract Standardization Group" <contract@ls.eei.org< Subject: Ballot on Article 2.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:leave-contract-9187S@ls.eei.org< List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: <mailto:subscribe-contract@ls.eei.org< List-Owner: <mailto:owner-contract@ls.eei.org< X-List-Host: EEI List Server <http://www.eei.org<; Reply-To: "Wholesale Electric Contract Standardization Group" <contract@ls.eei.org< X-Message-Id: <s8b6956b.072@mail.eei.org< Sender: bounce-contract-9187@ls.eei.org Precedence: bulk The following Message was sent to members of Contract List Server, the EEI Contract Standization Mailing List. To Members of the Working Group: A proposal was considered at the meeting in Houston on January 26 to add language to Article 2.3 of the Master Agreement which would require an agreement of both parties before any contract terms not part of the oral Transaction (but added to the written Confirmation) could become binding. Those in favor of adding such language hope to avoid the "long form confirmations" which have proliferated in the marketplace in the absence of an underlying master agreement - those containing arbitration clauses, Y2K representations and other non-commercial terms. Those who oppose adding such language believe it is critical to market participants to know at some point, relatively promptly after the oral trade call, that the confirm represents the commercial Transaction, and that trade tapes can be overwritten. They ask only that counterparties accept or reject the commercial Transaction terms within two Business Days. If there is a dispute about the terms of the Transaction as it appears in the Confirmation, they want to be notified so that tapes can be preserved and the issues can be addressed promptly. After much discussion, the Drafting Committee has developed language that could be added. Given the strong feelings on both sides of this issue, however, the Drafting Committee decided to poll each company in the Working Group as to whether such additional language should be added at all. If the Working Group votes "yes", the additional language below would be inserted in Article 2.3 as an option that only would apply if selected on the cover sheet. The following wording was developed by the Drafting Committee: "If a Confirmation contains provisions, other than those provisions relating to the commercial terms of the Transaction (e.g., price, special transmission conditions), which modify or supplement the general terms and conditions of this Master Agreement (e.g., arbitration provisions, additional representations and warranties), then such provisions shall not be deemed to be accepted pursuant to this Article 2.3 unless agreed to either orally or in writing by the Parties; provided that the foregoing will not affect the validity and binding nature of the Transaction." Accordingly, would ONE representative from each company in the Working Group please respond using the REPLY function of your email program to the following questions by cob Tuesday, February 29: 1. Should the language addressing this point be inserted into the Master Agreement? (If yes, the language will be an option selected on the Cover Sheet.) Yes_____ No_____ Andrew S. Katz, Senior Attorney Edison Electric Institute 701 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20004 Voice: 202-508-5616 Fax: 202-508-5673 e-mail: akatz@eei.org -----*** EEI - A Powerful Partner in a Competitive World sm ***----- You have received the above message as a subscriber to the EEI Contract Standization Electronic Mailing List: contract Your subscription address is listed as: [aKatz@eei.org] To stop receiving these messages, send a blank message to the list administrator: kSeaman@eei.org with the subject as: UNSUBSCRIBE You can reply to the EEI Contract List by using your email program's "ReplyTo" function, or by sending a message to the list administrator.
|